Originally posted by seer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Atheism And Moral Progress
Collapse
X
-
Last edited by carpedm9587; 09-05-2019, 03:26 PM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI don't do this often, because I find it repugnant when others play this as a childish game with their "FIFY" taunt. However, the easiest way for me to show you the error in your argument is to insert the implied (but invisible) word in your paragraph. So for those reading, the bolded/italicized/underlined word in the paragraph above is my insertion, and was not in Jim's original post. Absolutely, we cannot be objecting to the "same objective moral principle," because a subjective moral framework HAS no access to objective moral truths. That is the point - they don't exist. So here is what you have done:
P1 - All moralists agree that moral disagreement is a required element of moralism
P2 - Moral disagreement is when two people disagree on the same objectively true moral principle
C - Ergo the ability of two people to disagree on the same objectively true moral principle is a required element of moralism
So, first, that a lot of people agree on something does not make a thing true. So the structure of P1 renders this argument unsound. P1 should be "moral disagreement is a required element of moralism," but then you would have to show how this is known to be true - and all you have is "everyone agrees."
Second, P2 explicitly defines moral disagreement in terms of objective truths. But your goal is to show that morality must be objective, so you are defining the term in such a way as to preclude any other possible outcome - which is begging the question.
Who is the greater painter: Matisse or Picasso? There is some conceivable fact of the matter, though the question is heavily context-dependent.
Is there metaphysical free will?
What is the nature of time?
All but the strictest reductionists would say such questions are 'truth apt.' On subjectivism, this conceivability is removed. This conceivability is there with other non-objective moral theories, such as teleological theories, so this is not a case of question-begging.
We cannot constructively disagree toward the resolution of conflict if there are no conceivable facts of the matter in dispute. Moraldisagreements are not possible where there is no conceivable fact of the matter in dispute.
The fact is, if I say "random killing is immoral" and you are saying "random killing is moral," we are morally disagreeing. You can deny it all you wish, but we are looking at the same action and one of us is calling it moral and the other calling it immoral. WHY we come to those conclusions is based on our subjective valuing/cherishing, so we have a challenge in coming to moral agreement - but there is not question that we are looking at the same act and coming to different conclusions about its moral value.
I expess how the pizza tastes to me and you express how the pizza tastes to you. "De gustibus non est disputandum."
I have responded to this before, but I'll do it again. The problem lies in the sentence I emphasized above. You see, it is only "very unlikely" because everything in you wants there to be an objective framework, and you are measuring it against that desire. You are basically arguing, "it cannot be subjective because then it's not objective."
So moral fallibility occurs in a couple of ways. First, categorizing action is all about sorting "ought do" from "ought not do." That is a natural by product of sentience. We use the term "morality" when that sorting is related to actions that impact the things we value/cherish most. So one way I can be morally fallible is to take a moral position that, through faulty reasoning or any other influence, actually negatively impacts something I value/cherish. As soon as someone shows me how my moral position is actually undermining something I value/cherish, my moral position will change and I will see the flaw in my original moral position. Another way we are morally fallible is when we hold a moral position but fail to live up to it in our day to day action, doing something we know to be injurious to what we value/cherish for a short term gain in something we value/cherish to a lesser degree. I see it as morally good to tell the truth, but telling the truth to X will make them angry at me and I value their friendship, so I lie, knowingly doing something I find to be morally ill.
SUBJECTIVISM: THE MORAL THEORY THAT MY MORAL BELIEFS AT TIME T ARE TRUE.
But above you're outlining all the ways you can be "wrong" in your moral beliefs. If you were wrong at time t, then subjectivism is false. I feel the need to repeat that since we've been over this so many times: IF YOU WERE WRONG AT TIME T, THEN SUBJECTIVISM IS FALSE. Also, you talk about "faulty reasoning" as undermining what you value/cherish. Are the criteria of what is and is not "faulty reasoning" something that you subjectively decide? If not, then you are subjecting your subjective beliefs and desires to "objective criteria". But then those criteria would undermine the truth-making features of your subjective beliefs and desires. And if these "other influences" are publicly accessible/observable, and not private and unique to you, this would also undermine the authority of your subjective beliefs and desires. All of this, out of your very own fingertips, makes the subjectivist thesis very problematic.
When you mention not living up to a moral position, that's irrelevant to this discussion, since subjectivism is about beliefs, not about actions.
When what we value/cherish shifts, it is likely there will be cascade effects on our moral positions. This has characteristics you note above: our moral framework will shift and we will see our old moral framework as "incorrect" and our new moral framework as "correct." But that is an illusion. The fact is, our old moral position was correct for what we valued/cherished then, and our new moral framework is correct for what we value/cherish now. You find that "very unlikely" because you have arbitrarily decided that moral principles are like mathematical and logical ones: objectively true. They are actually like legal ones: subjectively true. Today pot is illegal (federal level) and people are going to jail. Tomorrow pot will be legal and people will not go to jail. What we value has shifted and the law shifted with it. Our present society will look back at the former society and say, "what were they thinking?" Our former society (if it could) would look at our present society and say "what are they thinking?" Each would consider the other wrong, but they are doing so from the perspective of what is currently cherished/valued.
Again, it seems like all you're doing is looking at morality only through the descriptive lens, and noting that it changes and varies, and concluding from that "Diversity Thesis" observation that there can be no possible truth to the matter. But the mere descriptivity a thing, especially a human cultural meaning-bearing and meaning-producing institution such as morality, is not always a good argument for the nature of a thing, especially when it presents another prima facie nature that at least deserves to be taken seriously, although not assumed to be real.
Jim - I know you hate it when say this, but your arguments are riddled with assumptions about morality having to be objective, and the arguments basically boil down to "but, but....that's not objective!"
I truly think you (and Seer) are blind to how locked-in you are to the insistence that morality has to be objective or it is somehow not "real." I see you as going in circles badly.Last edited by Jim B.; 09-05-2019, 04:11 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostFeel free to shift gears, Jim, or quit. Meanwhile, I value/cherish X. You claim that I "ought to value/cherish Y." But you can establish no basis for this claim. I can tell you why I value/cherish what I value/cherish. I can tell you why I want others to value/cherish as I value/cherish (and have done so). But the statement "you ought to value/cherish X" is meaningless unless you can show a source for this "ought." Why "ought" someone value/cherish X? Ultimately, if you try to answer that question, you will end up expressing it in terms of something else that is subjectively valued/cherished. You cannot escape this reality. If you think you can - then here is your challenge:
One of the things many of us value/cherish is "liberty." It is the basis for a great number of our moral positions. So please explain why someone "ought to value liberty," without making any reference to subjectively valued/cherished things.
What I'm suggesting is that you may be confusing the medium and the object of thought. You're right that anything I express in moral language I must do so in terms if what "I" value, because anything that I think and feel is necessarily tied to my subjective point of view. Anything that the astronomer observes through her telescope is necessarily observed through the medium of the lens of her telescope. She cannot refer to any of her observations through her telescope without indirectly relying on the medium of her lens. This does not prove that there is anything beyond her lens. It is only a way to imagine another way to think about it and to suspend judgment one way or another. If I ask you to imagine the Eiffel Tower, you'll probably come up with a variety of blurry usually visual mental images of various kinds. These images are how most people would imagine the Eiffel Tower. But it's a mistake to confuse the 'object' of what you're imagining, the tower in Paris, with these mental images happening in your head right now. I am not asking you to imagine a series of images of the Eiffel Tower.
The mistake that subjectivism makes, IMO, is to take the necessary medium of moral thought, subjective valuings, and to hypostatize it into the object of moral thought, moral truth and justification, without argument. This move is based, I believe, on a descriptive assumption that there can be no irreducible normative dimension to morality, and this move is made, again, without argument.
As far as "liberty," you'd have to define what kind you're talking about. And as explained above, trying to justify why liberty ought to be defended without any reference to subjective valuings is like trying to type these words without any reference to my subjective sense of vision or sense of touch in my fingertips as they tap the keys. To ask for such a thing is to express a misunderstanding of the issues involved.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostFirst you don't know that is reality, you can not demonstrate that God doesn't, even if I can't show that he does. And again what would evidence for God look like? I have asked Tass this a number of times - no answer. So I ask you...
You are right of course, I do not know that your belief is not reality, but I also have no reason to believe it is. I only know the reality that is before me. I guess you could call me a Thomas in that i'm not blessed to believe in the extraordinary claim without seeing it, or at least without seeing some solid evidence as to its reality.Last edited by JimL; 09-05-2019, 09:37 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostOf course this universe is finally tune for the possibility of life, never mind order.
Then prove that this universe could or was created by non-rational forces of nature
You are begging the question Tass, why do we have the finely tuned natural laws and constants? Dumb luck?
And I think it is just as nonsensical to believe that non-rational forces created such a universe:“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostNo. Mostly the universe is hostile to life. Where it has evolved…on earth and maybe on an infinitesimal number of planets orbiting some of the billions upon billions of stars in the universe(s)…it evolved to meet the conditions of where it arose NOT because the universe was created specifically to bring it about.
You "prove" it wasn't. We have ample verified evidence of the existing laws and constants of the universe, we have none of an immaterial creator god bringing them about.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostIt isn't my job to demonstrate that your belief is more than just an imagined idea. That's your job, and you can not do that because we know that as far as any believer is concerned god is only an imagined idea, i.e. a belief in that for which there is no evidence. Until and unless you can do that, then there is no reason for me to believe that your idea of god is anything more than an idea. We know why people believe, they believe because, well for one thing they want to believe, and for another because the belief was impressed upon them by others and depending upon the culture into which they were born, they believe in the god of that culture.
You are right of course, I do not know that your belief is not reality, but I also have no reason to believe it is. I only know the reality that is before me. I guess you could call me a Thomas in that i'm not blessed to believe in the extraordinary claim without seeing it, or at least without seeing some solid evidence as to its reality.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View Post"It cannot be objective because moral beliefs change and vary." See, I can do it too! A lot easier than having to put together an actual argument and stuff!Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI never said or wrote "the same 'objectively true moral principle.'" That's your straw man caricature of what I'm saying.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostWhy do you think there is such a thing as morality?
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostYes, it's about promoting and protecting what we value but it's also about ameliorating problems, resolving conflicts. In-group and out-group tensions and conflict - you don't think that has anything to do with why humans are moral?
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostMoral disagreement doesn't presuppose objective moral truths. It requires that there be some virtual or conceivable fact of the matter, not necessarily an actual fact of the matter.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostWho is the greater painter: Matisse or Picasso? There is some conceivable fact of the matter, though the question is heavily context-dependent.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostIs there metaphysical free will?
What is the nature of time?
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostAll but the strictest reductionists would say such questions are 'truth apt.' On subjectivism, this conceivability is removed. This conceivability is there with other non-objective moral theories, such as teleological theories, so this is not a case of question-begging.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostWe cannot constructively disagree toward the resolution of conflict if there are no conceivable facts of the matter in dispute. Moraldisagreements are not possible where there is no conceivable fact of the matter in dispute.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostThe matter in dispute is [the moral status of random killing]. On your theory, I express my subjective valuings/cherishings regarding the matter and you do yours. End of discussion. We are looking at the same act, just as we were looking at the same man in Josef Stalin, but neither the act nor the man is the matter in dispute. The moral status of these things is what is in dispute.
The matter in dispute is the skill of the artist. I express my subjective assessment regarding the matter and you do yours. End of discussion. We are looking at the same artists, but neither the art nor the man is the matter in dispute. The skill of the artist is what is in dispute.
I see no difference. We can disagree on the skill of the artist - and we can disagree on the moral status of an act. We can do so in a subjective moral framework and have been doing it for millenia because morality IS inherently subjective.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI expess how the pizza tastes to me and you express how the pizza tastes to you.
Originally posted by Jim B. View Post"It cannot be objective because moral beliefs change and vary." See, I can do it too! A lot easier than having to put together an actual argument and stuff!
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostOkay, so above you seem to be saying that there is such a thing as moral fallibility, right? That it is real, not illusory? While below, you seem to dismiss it as illusory. Okay, I'll try to make this as simple as I can.
SUBJECTIVISM: THE MORAL THEORY THAT MY MORAL BELIEFS AT TIME T ARE TRUE.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostBut above you're outlining all the ways you can be "wrong" in your moral beliefs. If you were wrong at time t, then subjectivism is false. I feel the need to repeat that since we've been over this so many times: IF YOU WERE WRONG AT TIME T, THEN SUBJECTIVISM IS FALSE. Also, you talk about "faulty reasoning" as undermining what you value/cherish. Are the criteria of what is and is not "faulty reasoning" something that you subjectively decide? If not, then you are subjecting your subjective beliefs and desires to "objective criteria". But then those criteria would undermine the truth-making features of your subjective beliefs and desires. And if these "other influences" are publicly accessible/observable, and not private and unique to you, this would also undermine the authority of your subjective beliefs and desires. All of this, out of your very own fingertips, makes the subjectivist thesis very problematic.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostWhen you mention not living up to a moral position, that's irrelevant to this discussion, since subjectivism is about beliefs, not about actions.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostInteresting. So you allow for the possibility of error in some ways but not when it comes to what you "value/cherish." We're all infallible as far as what we value, is that it?
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostWhat if what you value is not aligned with other deeper things you value? If your surface values are out of alignment with your core values?
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostAgain, it seems like all you're doing is looking at morality only through the descriptive lens, and noting that it changes and varies, and concluding from that "Diversity Thesis" observation that there can be no possible objective truth to the matter.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostBut the mere descriptivity a thing, especially a human cultural meaning-bearing and meaning-producing institution such as morality, is not always a good argument for the nature of a thing, especially when it presents another prima facie nature that at least deserves to be taken seriously, although not assumed to be real.
Normative ethics is about intrinsic value, right and wrong, and/or virtues.
Then this definition of "normative" assumes "intrinsic value" and "objective moral truths." It is inconsistent with subjective morality and is basically a useless term because it makes an unsubstantiated assumption. Demonstrate that morality is rooted in objective truths and this definition of "normative" will become relevant. So far, you have failed to do so. Every challenge I have put forward to you has been largely ignored.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostIt can't be objective because it varies and changes!
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostWhere did I say it HAD to be objective? Some projection here?
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI don't know what you're working through here. That's your business, but you seem to have an awful lot invested in this.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostWhat I'm suggesting is that you may be confusing the medium and the object of thought. You're right that anything I express in moral language I must do so in terms if what "I" value, because anything that I think and feel is necessarily tied to my subjective point of view. Anything that the astronomer observes through her telescope is necessarily observed through the medium of the lens of her telescope. She cannot refer to any of her observations through her telescope without indirectly relying on the medium of her lens.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostThis does not prove that there is anything beyond her lens. It is only a way to imagine another way to think about it and to suspend judgment one way or another. If I ask you to imagine the Eiffel Tower, you'll probably come up with a variety of blurry usually visual mental images of various kinds. These images are how most people would imagine the Eiffel Tower. But it's a mistake to confuse the 'object' of what you're imagining, the tower in Paris, with these mental images happening in your head right now. I am not asking you to imagine a series of images of the Eiffel Tower.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostThe mistake that subjectivism makes, IMO, is to take the necessary medium of moral thought, subjective valuings, and to hypostatize it into the object of moral thought, moral truth and justification, without argument. This move is based, I believe, on a descriptive assumption that there can be no irreducible normative dimension to morality, and this move is made, again, without argument.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostAs far as "liberty," you'd have to define what kind you're talking about. And as explained above, trying to justify why liberty ought to be defended without any reference to subjective valuings is like trying to type these words without any reference to my subjective sense of vision or sense of touch in my fingertips as they tap the keys. To ask for such a thing is to express a misunderstanding of the issues involved.
I have made this challenge multiple times in our exchange. Each time, the request remains unanswered. Doesn't that tell you something?The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostNonsense Tass, go back to my video. Those constants had to be precisely right for one; a universe to exist, and two; for universe to be life permitting (to allow even the possibility of life).
Again you are begging the question Tass, the universe with its laws and constants it what NEEDS to be explained. The universe itself does not explain how it got here. And there is no evidence that non-rational forces, non-intelligent forces of nature could or did create such a finely tuned cosmos.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostIf the greater cosmos is itself infinite and eternal, then, like your idea of god, it doesn't need a creator, and neither does the forms it gives birth to. Btw, the laws and constants don't need explanation either, the laws and constants of the universe, of our particular universe, is simply the result of the original state of the universe prior to the bang. There could be an infinite many original states.
Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. In 2012 Vilenkin showed that models which do not meet this one condition still fail for other reasons to avert the beginning of the universe. Vilenkin concluded, “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal.”[1] “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
A.Vilenkin, cited in “Why physicists can't avoid a creation event,” by Lisa Grossman, New Scientist (January 11, 2012).
The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning. Vilenkin is blunt about the implications: It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning
(Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.co...ad-a-beginningAtheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostIt's not a strawman, Jim. It's the only way your argument makes sense.
Because the sentient mind is a categorizer and decision maker. When we have a choice of actions, it is a natural process of sentience to sort actions into "should/ought" and "should not/ought not." "Morality" is nothing more than the name we give to that process when it relates to things we cherish/value deeply. Otherwise, it's the same process we use for things we cherish/value trivially (i.e., food preferences).
All of those things are simply indicators of what we value/cherish deeply: freedom, life, relationship/community, love, happiness, etc.
I have no idea how you are distinguishing between "objective moral truths" and "fact of the matter."
And yet that determination is entirely subjective. It will depend on what the person making the assessment values/prefers in art. If we are to draw a parallel, the "fact of the matter" (if I understand how you are using that term) in assessing art is the painting and it's characteristics. The "fact of the matter" in morality is the action, the intention of its perpetrator, and the effect(s) of the act. The subjective assessment in art is rooted in the preferences/likes of the assessor. The subjective assessment in morality is rooted in the valuing/cherishing of the moralizer.
I have no idea how these relate to the discussion at hand.
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
I have outlined some "facts of the matter" above (assuming I have understood your meaning). I see no difference between assessing the morality of an act and assessing the skills of a painter. Both are subjective assessments of an objective reality with associated facts.
The matter in dispute is the skill of the artist. I express my subjective assessment regarding the matter and you do yours. End of discussion. We are looking at the same artists, but neither the art nor the man is the matter in dispute. The skill of the artist is what is in dispute.
I see no difference. We can disagree on the skill of the artist - and we can disagree on the moral status of an act. We can do so in a subjective moral framework and have been doing it for millenia because morality IS inherently subjective.
Shifting to Latin doesn't solidify your case, Jim. As I noted, there is no assurance of resolving a moral disagreement if we value/cherish differently. But just as we can entice someone to like something they have not previously liked (I have done so many times in my life - and I daresay you have as well), we can likewise entice someone to cherish/value something differently. Since the majority of us value/cherish the same major things - this is not usually the root of our moral disagreements. Our disagreements are more commonly rooted in how (or whether) we reason from what we value/cherish to our conclusions. Take Christians, for example. They tend to all value their god and see the bible as this god's "revealed word." As a consequence, their moral disagreements tend to be rooted in varying understandings of what this god wants and how to read the bible.
I have never made "it's subjective because it varies" a part of my argument, Jim, so you are making up this part out of whole cloth.
So maybe this is your problem. I have never made this argument....so...
....all of this is irrelevant. You have basically made up a definition I do not endorse and then torn it down. If anyone uses that definition, I agree with your tear down. I don't, so...
Morality is about assessing actions...and it happens to be a subjective process.
Infallible? I have no idea how you come to that conclusion. We value/cherish what we value/cherish. There is no "fallible" or "infallible" about it. It is a fact of our existence. It is a personality characteristic that emerges from a variety of factors. It is what it is.
Basically, what we value lies on a continuum from "deeply held and profoundly cherished" to "trivially held and casually cherished." When these come in conflict, the deeper or more profound one tends to be the determiner of our moral stance. In other words, we'll sacrifice the trivial/casual to the deep/profound in formulating our moral positions. However, we humans have a propensity for sacrificing the deeper/profounder to the trivial/casual in actual choice of action - which is when we find ourselves evaluating our own actions as immoral.
Again, I have added the invisible word (bold, italics, underlined). There are not objective truths to the matter. Of course not - morality is subjective so the truths are subjective as well. This is another way you have of arguing "it cannot be subjective because then it is not objective."
Then this definition of "normative" assumes "intrinsic value" and "objective moral truths." It is inconsistent with subjective morality and is basically a useless term because it makes an unsubstantiated assumption. Demonstrate that morality is rooted in objective truths and this definition of "normative" will become relevant. So far, you have failed to do so. Every challenge I have put forward to you has been largely ignored.
Again, the (sometimes) varying/changing nature of our moral principles has nothing to do with the subjective nature of morality. Moral principles could change in a hypothetical objective moral world simply as a result of a changing understanding of the underlying objective moral truths. The subjective nature of morality is rooted in the subjective nature of the foundations of morality: what we value/cherish.
Interesting. This is the first time I am aware of your openness to the idea that morality is subjective in nature. Your posts seemed to imply that your reject the notion outright. My apologies for misunderstanding your arguments. I am curious as to what it is that gives you the sense of this possibility.
You're engaging in some armchair psychology here, Jim. I am engaged in a philosophical discussion, something I enjoy doing as a pass-time between various projects around the house and in my business. My investment is limited to that enjoyment. When it ceases to be enjoyable, I move on. That happened with Seer. I began to realize that he is largely interested in ridiculing and trolling his discussion opponents, and I just don't find value in that. It took me a long while to see it because I actually took the opportunity to meet the man and was impressed that he was a decent guy with everyday joys and problems like the rest of us, but his online persona is quite different. At this point, I've largely disengaged with everyone here. This forum seems far more interested in inter-personal abuse and reveling in political/religious bubbles than actual discussion of the issues. If/when you and disconnect, I'll probably move on. Right now you're close to the only one left I engage with.Last edited by Jim B.; 09-06-2019, 04:01 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostNo, as I tried to explain. A discussion can be framed as if there were a fact of the matter, although we don't know. On subjectivism, this conceivability is removed.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostThere's much more to it than that. It.s because we as humans are language users and can think in sentences and propositions, and can sophisiticatedly, linguistically self-model, we can think hypothetically and temporally, in terms of our pasts and futures in terms of self-modelling and hypothetical future states and how these states relate socially and linguistically. Value preference is a given - that is there with grubworms. That's a bare necessary condition. With all of the other complications I mention entering the picture, conflict and resolution become much more pressing issues. Also awareness of mortality, a concomitant of many of the features I mention, I believe is also a big factor.
s no more complex than that.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostYes, everything is in the service of what we value, but that's so broad and simple as to not be all that explanatory in all cases. It's sounds a bit like Scientology's reliance on the prime directive : Survive! It just smacks too much of an ideology, no offense.
Why would I be offended? It's not economic or political, per se - but it is indeed a "system of ideas and ideals."
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI'm not saying that morality has to pre-suppose an objective truth. There are forms of consequentialism that don't have objective truths which nevertheless allow for moral disagreement.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostNot necessarily. There is a subjective element to such questions that's ineliminable, I agree. If you've ever judged an art competition, you know that you have to make a clear separation between the works YOU personally like and the ones you believe are the best according to some set of criteria held to by the art community, ie by a standard that is broader than just your own personal preferences. If I'm judging the "best" split pea soup at the County Fair, I may personally detest split pea soup, but if I am a skilled chef with a trained palate, I can judge the soup based on some criteria beyond my own preferences, even though there is an ineradicable subjective element involved.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostThere may be facts of the matter. They are framed in a fact-oriented language allowing for constructive dialogue. They are matters that are publicly accessible, unlike how pizza tastes to you and to me. There is no publicly accessible fact of the matter to disagree over. We just express our subjective feelings and move on. With Matisse and Picasso, it's at least CONCEIVABLE that there is some fact of the matter in some context. We can compare their drafting skills, their emotive qualities, their skills as colorists, their formal inventiveness, their political engagement, the size and quality of their impact and influence on art and culture, or a hundred other indices. There is a subjective element, but it's not like the taste of pizza which is completely tied to immediate physical sensation and each person's private response to same.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI didn't mean to say "truth-apt." I should have said "fact-apt."
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostSee above.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostIt's not entirely subjective. Otherwise, if someone asked me who was the greater painter and I asked, "Do you mean who do I personally prefer, or who do I think was actually the best?" that question would be meaningless, and I don't think it is meaningless. We can make discriminations in our judgments of things. Of course, my judgment will hinge upon what I think, but what I think comes in a broad spectrum from subjectively to objectively based.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostBeg away! Asserting something don't make it so!
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI have to ask again, and I do so in all sincerity: Are you sure you're a subjectivist? Note the highlighted passage. If our disagreements are rooted in how we reason from our values our conclusions, then how is that compatible with subjectivism? Would that mean that one of the people disagreeing is wrong? If there is a standard to which my subjective moral beliefs and desires is to be held which is not itself subjectively derived, then this is not compatible with subjectivism as I understand it.
Originally posted by Jim B. View Post"and differs." It's a knowledge argument, not an ontological argument. For the record, I've never made "It can't be subjective because it can't be objective" argument. I've always only made the argument "It can't be subjective because all of these other absurd consequences follow from it being subjective, NOT because it can't be objective." I'm not sure you've ever seen that difference. But I have faith that omnia vincit veritas!
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostEvery source I've found says that subjectivism is the theory that moral truth is what the individual believes it to be. A belief happens at some time, right? My believing that X is morally right constitutes it being morally right just because I believe that it is morally right. What is your definition?
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostSo you're not a subjectivist according to the internet sources I've found. Just as I've suspected. I think you're back pedalling.
But you aren't the first to accuse me of "back-pedaling," and I'm sure you won't be the last. It's a common strategy here. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostThat's incredibly vague and unhelpful.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostCan we be wrong in what we value? Our core values I would say no.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostSo I can be wrong in my moral assessments, and I can sometimes know I am wrong by reference to a standard, such as reason, logic, observation, intersubjectivity, etc, that is not unique to me personally? Would you agree that this can be true sometimes?
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostOf course, this is the matter under dispute, so you're slipping back into your default mode again. You ignored the word POSSIBLE. Are you familiar with that word? I am asking you to entertain the possibility of an open mind, just as I try to entertain the possibility of subjectivism. I am not assuming objectivity if the word POSSIBLE immediately precedes it.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostIs it necessarily the case that intrinsic value is incompatible with subjectivism?
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI'm still not confident that you know what the heck you're arguing for. I don't have any idea that you have a coherent notion of what it is you're defending. When I cornered you above, you say, "Oh, that's not me! I'm not advocating THAT position!" What position are you defending? It's like an ad hoc hodge podge. All you seem to know is that "Objective moral truth cannot be so" and you cling to that with religious fervor.
I have outlined my position multiple times, now, Jim. But I do acknowledge that you do not appear to understand it. The failing may be mine, or yours, or perhaps it is shared. Perhaps I am not using terms you are familiar with, or perhaps you define them differently. If you feel it is pointless to continue, say the word and we will desist.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostWHy do you mention so often the fact that morality changes and differs?
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostIt's how you know that what we value is the foundation of morality. What I'm writing right now is rooted in my eyes and my fingertips. It all depends on what explanatory level you choose to focus on. You're an 'explanatory monist.' Everything in a complex field is really one thing, can be explained by one thing. I prefer 'explanatory pluralism.' things, especially human things that have to do with meaning, rarely if ever are explainable in a monist, one-level manner.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostWell, it's meta-ethics, which is like metaphysics. None of us can be sure. Dogmatism isn't justified on any side, IMO. OTOH, it is something happening inside us, which doesn't give us unimpeachable authority but more than in most areas. And I believe the arguments against the version of subjectivism I've been arguing against and that is represented onlineare compelling.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostDidn't mean for it to come across that way. You seem like a decent guy. You do come across as dogmatic sometimes. I know I can come across that way too.
With respect to morality, why don't we try this. In a subjective worldview, the subjective moralist is essentially saying that all moral claims follow this simple logic:
P1) if one values/cherishes X, then you ought do (or not do) Y. (why/how this is true for an individual is based in how they get from value/cherish to "ought" - logic, feeling, intuition, rolling the die, etc.)
P2) I (or you) value X
C) I (or you) ought do (or not do) Y.
Because what is valued/cherished in P1 is subjectively determined, C is therefore subjectively determined.
So how does the objective moralist get to C) without any reference to subjectively derived valuing/cherishing?The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI think you have just done what I did earlier, and confused "individualized" with "subjective." The astronomer's experience of the universe through the telescope is individualized by the nature of the telescope. It is not rendered subjective by it.
I have no idea what you are trying to get at with this analogy.
The Tower= the object of thought
I have no idea what the "necessary medium of moral thought" refers to. As for the rest, I have outlined how/why I find morality to be subjective in several posts on several pages. As noted, I can provide evidence for my conclusions, but I cannot provide a "proof" (i.e., a formal argument) for a subjective reality. I cannot prove, by formal argument, that my love of gardening is rooted in my love of life and love of the outdoors in general. On the other hand, you SHOULD be able to provide a formal argument for an objective reality, and so far have failed to do so.
1. Moral beliefs are always differing and changing.
2. Moral reasoning is inseparable from subjective valuings.
3. There is no evidence of an 'objective' moral framework or an objective moral principle that does not depend upon subjective valuings for its truth.
As far as 1., even you admitted in your last post that this is not a strong reason for accepting subjectivism.
2. is also a very poor reason to accept subjectivism. Just because we find two things together, in this case moral reasoning and subjective valuing, doesn't tell us anything about the nature of the relation of the two things. Much more has to be known. X and Y are seen in conjunction, but does X cause Y or does Y cause X, or do they merely correlate with each other? Is one the necessary condition for the other? The sufficient condition?The mere conjunction tells us next to nothing.
3. Remember that 'objective' in the ethical sense means 'true for more than one person.' It does not mean "absolutely, timelessly true," or "true in a Platonic sense the way the truths of maths and logic are true." It does not mean "true even if there were no humans in existence." It means "true as in not depending on the opinion or belief of just one single individual."
Lying is morally wrong because of the truth-normative nature of human language-use. Humans have a prima facie duty to tell the truth because of truth-dependent nature of language use; this dependence can be seen in the asymmetric nature of truth and lying. Lying is truth-dependent whereas truth is not similarly lying-dependent. This asymmetry is why liars ape truth tellers and why truth-tellers do not ape liars. Liars want to be believed but truth-tellers don't want to be doubted. This is the point you never got. When we lie, we are violating the implicit logic of language use. Imagine a king decreeing that everyone in his kingdom must lie from now on. It wouldn't last an hour. Perhaps the opposite would have problems too, but it is conceivable. The problems with the first scenario are conceivability problems, the second with aplicability/practicability problems.
Jim, it's a simple request. You claim there is an "ought" to what we value. Most of us value liberty. Presumably, if you value liberty and are consistent in your worldview, you see liberty as something one "ought to value." So explain why someone "ought to value liberty." Or pick anything that you DO value, and explain why it is someone "ought to value it" remaining entirely in the objective domain. Indeed, take any moral precept you hold, and explain how it is rooted in an "objective moral truth" without any recourse to subjective valuing.Last edited by Jim B.; 09-06-2019, 06:51 PM.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
160 responses
505 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 07:28 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
|
88 responses
354 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-01-2024, 09:27 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
133 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment